How to tell “liberal” from a “conservative”

A conservative now seems to be anyone who calls anyone who disagrees with him or her a “liberal”.

How to tell who is a “liberal”?  I don’t know.  There are so ,many varieties.

In the current political climate. Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower would be considered “liberals”.  Probably even Mr. Republican, Robert Taft!!

It also seems that the “conservatives” are being very “liberal” with their interpretation of the Constitution: corporations are people and the Second Amendment means the people have no right to regulate a militia of one person.  I would imagine that the conservatives that wrote these documents would be appalled at these interpretations.

Justice Thomas and the Second Amendment

Justice Thomas and others seem to believe the Second Amendment reads "The people have no right to regulate a militia of one person".

Do they also believe that that one person has a right to fire into a crowded theater?  The Supreme Court long ago limited free speech by stating that a person cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.

If someone were to claim that Justice Thomas was getting paid one million dollars a year from  the arms industry, wouldn't Justice Thomas be justified in suing to limit that persons right to free speech?

On the other hand, Justice Thomas should get an honorarium from the Federalist Society to cover travel expenses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/opinion/guns-second-amendment-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer,   Linda Greenhouse

Gun Control

I wonder what the writers of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights would think of the Second Amendment being interpreted as:

The people have no right to regulate a militia of one person.

If you read through the Constitution you will find that the writers knew quite well the difference between “the people” and “a person”.

Posted to Nicholas Kristof's 2018-03-08 column on the Florida school shooting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opinion/parkland-florida-gun-control.html?comments#permid=26247237

Tweet of the Day: AR-15 and Marco Rubio

“We should change the names of AR-15s to “Marco Rubio” because they are so easy to buy.”
Sarah Chadwick, 2018-02-23.

294K likes compared to Rubio’s 23K likes

Included in Helaine Olen’s “The Parkland kids are revealing America’s failings for all to see”.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/03/05/the-parkland-kids-are-revealing-americas-failings-for-all-to-see/

One of the commenters (kdog_wnc) quotes the Rev. Dr. William Barber: "There are those who say so much about which the Bible says so little, and say so little about which the Bible says so much."

One Representative’s take on “terrorism”

”Now we're obsessing over whether the (Nevada) carnage was 'terrorism'," he wrote in a tweet. "If we decide it is, we'll mobilize untold resources. If not, nothing.”’
Jim Times, Rep. Connecticut

“Terrorism, Race, Religion: Defining the Las Vegas Shooting”, Associated Press, reprinted in New York Times, 2017-10-02, https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/10/02/us/ap-defining-terrorism.html.

Jim Himes has also stayed away for the “prayers” for the victims of Orlando shootings.  “There would be, for the umpteenth time, a moment of silence. To ‘honor’ the victims.”
“Why I walked out of the House’s moment of silence for Orlando”, Washington Post, 2016-06-14, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/14/why-i-walked-out-of-the-houses-moment-of-silence-for-orlando/?utm_term=.0511e903c97b.

"Strict constructionist judges”?

"'Strict construction' is a manner of interpreting the U.S. Constitution using a literal and narrow definition of language in the document without regard to changes that have occurred in American society since the 18th century document was written.”
- "Trump to Nominate 'Strict Constructionist' to Supreme Court", New York Times, 2017-01-26

I find that it strange that “strict constructionists” manage to interpret “We the People” as “We the Corporations”, to interpret that Congress has no right to regulate commerce among the states, and to interpret that “the people” in the second amendment means persons.

Will one of these "strict constructionists" strike down any anti-Muslim actions by Trump?  Remember all those "Christians" who want their freedom to discriminate.  If these judges were “strict constructionists” they would rule that people are free to believe what they want, but they can’t practice whatever they want when it impinges on others.

Will one of these “strict constructionists” stop Trump if he goes to war without the approval of Congress?

If you read George Washington’s “Farewell Address”, you will find a lot about the “intent” of the Founders and how much governments (of whatever party) have not followed the “intent” very well.  See “George Washington: Ignored Father of His Country".

If you can, watch a movie on John Marshall, an early Chief Justice, who struggled with many of these questions.

Activist right-wing judges

Thanks for "activist right-wing judges". First "people" became "persons" (Second Amendment) and then "corporations became "persons" (Preamble). Will "four-year term" become lifetime next?

Comment to scottluack’s comment on “The Supreme Court’s Next Gun Battle”, Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, 2017-01-19, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/the-supreme-courts-next-gun-battle.html?comments#permid=21145325:21147064.

Misuse of "conservative" and "free market”

Letter to New York Times public editor

I wish writers would more carefully use the terms “conservative” and “free market”.

Those labeled with these terms, by self or others, are too often neither.

Are “conservatives” thoughtful and cautious about change, or are they rigid in whatever their views?  For example, “conservative” religious sects are more often throwing the first stone rather than feeding the poor.  Do “conservatives" really follow the Constitution as it currently exists, or are they “activists” interpreting it to suit their own views?  “Persons” are corporations?  “People” in the Second Amendment are now persons.  “Regulate Commerce” is totally ignored.

As to “free market”, it is too often meant to mean corporations should be free to do what they please without government interference.  Adam Smith must be spinning in his grave as those who live by profit (not to be trusted) buy so many politicians with money or a barrage of misleading statements.

A true free market

Has many buyers and sellers
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter or leave the market
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision
All costs are paid for in the transaction, that is, there are no externalities.

Too many “free marketers” want as few sellers as possible, do their best to lock buyers into the market, find out as much as possible about buyers but hide or provide false information to the buyers, and ignore all the externalities like pollution and bad diets.

See “The Invisible Adam Smith”, http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-invisible-adam-smith.html

Gun rights vs. property rights, a conundrum for "conservatives"

'Tis hunting season in Minnesota.  Right now it is deer season and we can hear gunshots now and then.  I hope they were all on federal land to the south of us.

Technically, we are supposed to post "No Hunting" signs all around our property, but it is a real pain to post signs around 80 acres (half-mile along the road and a quarter-mile deep).  Besides, there always seem to be some jerks that will go right by a "No hunting/no trespassing sign.

Given that in St. Louis County, one can access the Online Land Explorer to find out ownership of every parcel of land, and so there is no excuse for trespassing.  In some other counties one can buy land maps.  Given all the other costs of hunting, I would think the maps are small change.

Now the conundrum, if a gun owner in a residential area is entitled to shoot and kill a "trespasser", should not a rural resident be entitled to shoot a trespassing hunter?

Case in point, several years ago a bird hunter shot down our driveway with a red pickup clearly visible in the driveway.  Would I have been entitled to shoot and kill that hunter in self-defense?

This particular hunter had a "right" to have a shot gun, but I have a right to my property without worrying about an irresponsible gun owner.

I have many friends who are responsible hunters, but shouldn't there be some restrictions on irresponsible people even owning guns.

Trump and the rule of personality, not of law

"Donald Trump is the personification of the distortion of a constitution by men who hate the constitution with such passion that they are willing to swear complete fealty as they destroy everything it stands for.” - Montreal Moe in response to Ross Douthat’s “The Trump Afterlife”, New York Times, 2016-10-19.

Douthat, being a true conservative, doesn’t care much for Trump’s anti-constitutional remarks.

To Montreal Moe’s comment I added:

Hear! Hear! I find it ironic that so-called conservatives rant about activist judges. So-called conservative Supreme Court Judges have defined corporations as persons and defined "people" in the Second Amendment to be "persons". Changes like these are certainly not "conservative”.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/campaign-stops/the-trump-afterlife.html?comments#permid=20183212:20184925.

Louis the XIV famously proclaimed “L’état, c’est moi!”.  "The state, it is me!"  Is Trump planning on being Donald the I?  Hm, in Trump’s case does “I” mean “me” or the first or both?  Trump’s remarks certainly sound monarchical (rule by one) rather than democratic (rule by many).

Quote of the day: an assault on assault

“[T]here is still no reason for a citizen to own an assault rifle unless he is planning an assault.”

“Omar Mateen, American Monster”, Charles M. Blow, New York Times, 2016-06-16, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/opinion/omar-mateen-american-monster.html

Bearing arms: collective or individual right

Those who interpret “people” in the Second Amendment to mean “persons” forget the reason for armories.  Armories were where militias kept the more deadly weapons until the militia needed them.  An armory is the place for semi-automatic and automatic weapons, not in any given person’s house or vehicle.

Sashaying Along with More Clichés

Everybody says: “Everybody” generally is all the persons that agree with the speaker.  Anyone with a contrary opinion is ignored.  A similar expression is “Everybody knows”.  I wonder if those who use this expression have asked everybody, at least in town, or just assume they can speak for “everybody”.

Unwritten law: This is often used as an excuse for using a gun to “defend” oneself, even against unarmed people.  According to Robert Traver in Anatomy of a Murder there is no unwritten law.  There are cases where killing another person are justified by written law.  These deal with cases in which somebody is in grave danger.

We often read or hear of someone claiming their “2nd amendment rights”.  If they are careful readers of the Amendments to the Constitution, they would see that the Second Amendment includes “the right of the people to bear arms”.  If we forgive them the grammatical error of using a plural noun when the Amendment uses a singular noun, we still have to think about their using an individual noun when the Amendment clearly has a collective noun.  Also, we should consider that the Southern States wanted this amendment to keep the Federal government from taking away their slaves.  Being armed did not prevent the loss of their slaves.

Often used with “2nd amendment rights” is the phrase “law-abiding citizens”.  How do we know that each and every “legitimate” gun owner is a “law-abiding citizen”?  We don’t.  How many “law-abiding citizens” go well over the speed limit, tail-gate, and run red lights?  How many “law-abiding citizens” regularly cheat on their income taxes?  Many of us will speed to pass an erratic driver or not bother to put some small item on our tax forms.  But some “law-abiding citizens” make it a practice to ignore the rights of others on the roads and to have large amounts of unreported income.

Worse yet, when these “law-abiding citizens” have a gun in their hands, they ignore the law for their own advantage.  Twice this bird-hunting season we found a shotgun shell by our gate, a gate with a no-trespassing sign, a drive that indicates it is private property, within 500 feet of two dwellings that can be seen from the road.  This is not an isolated incident.  We have had hunters shoot down the driveway with a red truck clearly visible, shoot into the brush by a no-trespassing sign across the road from a house with people outside, and many others who ignore the hunting regulations of knowing where they are hunting and to always ask permission.  Law-abiding hunters I know have asked permission and have gracefully accepted my denial.

“Hard-earned dollars” is one of the most sweeping political phrases.  How hard a person works to be paid can vary by job and by the task of the moment.  Sometimes a job can be so enjoyable that we forget to even look at the clock.  Sometimes a job can be so boring that we are constantly looking at the clock.  Some jobs have a bit of both.  One day everything goes great and seems like play; another day everything goes wrong.  These descriptions can fit both jobs involving hard physical labor and jobs sitting at a desk.

Does Santa Claus get hard-earned dollars?  Some Santas enjoy the job so much that getting paid is just icing on the cake.  Others, like me, were bored and couldn’t wait for the day to end.  I did do my best and was praised by management for my efforts and demeanor.

Does a bus driver get hard-earned dollars?  Depends.  Some drivers are people-oriented and the job is almost playing with a big toy.  Other drivers may have difficult passengers who make the drivers look forward to the end of the day.  I’ve been in both situations.  I had enough unruly students and coaches that I felt every dollar was hard-earned and still not enough.  On the other hand, I’ve been on charters where I napped in the bus, attended plays, or just sat around talking with others or reading.

Self-made man: show me a “self-made man” and I’ll see a self-deluded man.  Did this person never have parents or other care-givers?  Did this person teach himself to read?  “If you can read this, thank a teacher!” is a great bumper sticker that too many ignore.  Did this self-made man build all the widgets in his empire, staff all the stores in his domain, and make each and every decision needed?  Hell no, he depended on the work and ideas of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of others.  And sometimes even government grants.

Where would Google be without the government grant to work on a super search algorithm?

Where would Apple be without the likes of the team that worked on the first Macintosh?  Where would it be today without a super factory manager in Fremont, California.  Steve Jobs and Tim Cook may think of some themes to explore, but could they work out all the details of the user interface or write the thousands and thousands of lines of code?  And they would not have made a dime if there hadn’t been the local dealers and the thousands of UPS and Fed-Ex drivers who put the computers in the hands of the end-users.

And where would all these entrepreneurs be without the government research that created the internet?  By the way, the internet was not created to foster business, but to create a network with redundant routing for our “defense”.

Maybe we should stop electing lawyers and start electing English teachers.  The latter know what words mean, not what they want them to mean.

Back to the original Constitution? Be careful what you ask for!

In April, I submitted a letter to the Duluth News Tribune in response to a letter suggesting we should return to the original Constitution.  I think the complaint was all the various Supreme Court decisions.

My letter hadn’t been published and I assumed it was not going to be.  But then the Chuck Frederick, the opinion page editor, found some space, cleaned his desk, and published more than the usual number of letters on May 13.

Mine was:

A letter writer recently stated, “Maybe we should go back to the original Constitution and what it stood for.”  Be careful what you ask for.  There is plenty that was added that many would not like to see removed: Bill of Rights, abolition of slavery, and the vote for women.

Even those who were in politics at the time of the writing of the Constitution could not agree on its meaning.  Thomas Jefferson (in France during the Convention) and John Adams had a long falling out over its meaning.  Adams wanted a strong central government; Jefferson feared a strong central government.

I had thought of submitting a short additional paragraph, but never found a round tuit.  That paragraph is:

Could these views on the central government be influenced by the facts that Adam abhorred slavery and Jefferson was a slave “owner”?

Do these attitudes still persist?  In the South there is still lingering resentment against desegregation.  In  West there is resentment against restrictions on using public resources.

Shoot first, then call cops?

The latest incident of gun owners taking the law into their own hands happened in Missoula, Montana.  A German exchange student was killed because he foolishly tried on a lark to snitch something from a garage.  See “An Open Garage, a Dead Exchange Student and a New Debate on Self-Defense”, Jack Healy, New York Times, 2014-05-07

What is is about some gun-owners that they follow the supposed credo of the 20th Century Westerns to shoot first, ask questions second?

The most egregious killing was by Byron David Smith of Little Falls, Minnesota.  He not only shot teen-age, unarmed invaders multiple times, but he waited three days before calling the police.  He didn’t want to bother them on Thanksgiving!!!  See “Bryon David Smith killings”.  Smith was sentenced to life without parole.

Yoshihiro Hattori, killed in Baton Rouge in 1992 for going to the wrong house, didn’t receive similar justice.  His killer, Rodney Peairs, was acquitted.  He admitted at trial that he didn’t call the police first.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori.  His parents did receive a cash settlement that they used for funds for high school students to visit Japan and for gun control.  Peairs had said that he would never own a gun again.

This same Wikipedia article has a couple other cases of foreign visitors being killed by guns, including one who knocked on a door to ask for directions.

Maybe it was the movie Westerns of the 20th Century that fostered this cult of “self-defense”.  See “How the Gunfighter Killed Bourgeois America”, Ryan McMaken.

Second Amendment v. Article I, Section 8

"Everybody" seems to know exactly what the following means:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This was ratified by the States and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State authenticated it.

However, what Congress passed was:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Just what does the missing comma mean?  I'll defer to grammarians on this, but if there is any difference in meaning, it makes it harder to determine the intent of Congress.

Whatever, Cliven Bundy and his supporters are using "the right to bear arms" as a justification of his armed refusal to obey a court order that the Bureau of Land Management should confiscate his cattle for his non-payment of fees for use of Federal Land.

He seems to be ignoring Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that includes:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well.  The Constitution contains too many phrases that are open to interpretation.

A Tea Party member stated on a To the Best of Our Knowledge broadcast that she could determine the writers' intent by reading the Constitution.  She must be more knowledgable than the Justices of the Supreme Court.  They rarely have unanimous decisions. Even if they do, the decision can be overturned by a later court.  Consider that the "separate by equal" case justifying school segregation was overturned later by "Brown vs, Board of Education".

Even decisions on the Second Amendment have changed over time.

One of the early cases was US v. Cruikshank (1876) where the defendants were accused of threatening citizens of African descent who were exercising their own rights to peaceably assemble.

If the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right, then shouldn’t the slaves have had the right to bear arms for self-defense against oppressive slave owners and overreaching state governments that condoned slavery?

In Presser v. Illinois (1886), Presser claimed that the armed parade he was leading was protected by the Second Amendment.  Illinois law forbade anybody to form a military company without a license from the state.  The Supreme Court ruled against Presser.  Among the arguments was,  “The exercise of this power [to regulate the militia] by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.”

Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the opinion in US vs. Miller (1939) that The National Firearms Act was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and not violative of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  McReynolds was a very conservative judge who opposed much of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.
.
Then everything changed with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.  One of the pronouncements is “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

This reads as if written by an “activist judge” who interprets the Constitution to suit ideological beliefs rather than what the Constitution actually says.  This is surprising to come from a judge appointed by a president of a party who long railed against “activist judges”.

I wonder if the current Supreme Court would rule in Cliven Bundy’s favor because the Congress does not have the authority to call out the militia “to suppress insurrections”.  I wonder that if many in Congress voted to call out the militia would the Republicans then do everything they could to stop this action.

As so many of us are, the Republicans seem to be selective in which laws they support and which they oppose.  Are not laws prohibiting abortion an imposition on individual liberty?  Are not laws favoring certain religious views in schools an imposition on those who do not have those views?

And Republicans seem the most eager to have a large standing army to go anywhere the President wants for whatever reason.  Boy!  Talk about not following the intent of the Founders.

What is an independent to do?  “Conservatives” want to go back to a past that never was, and “Liberals” want a future that will never be.

Assumptions of a gun slinger

A picture of a man with a gun at his hip accompanies an article about guns at the State Capitol, "Capitol debate triggers show of weapons", Jim Ragsdale, Star Tribune, 2013-08-20.  The bearer of the gun said he feels safer with his own weapon.

His first assumption is that he is under threat of bodily harm by somebody.  Are any of the state representatives or senators going to threaten him with a gun?  Do any of these politicians carry a gun in the State Capitol?  Maybe he is afraid Capitol security might throw him out.

His second assumption is that if he is threatened by someone with a gun that he can pull out his gun, take off the safety, aim, disable the other person before that person even fires a shot, and not hit any bystanders.  Even police with extensive firearms training can't accomplish that very often.  Think of the Fort Hood shooting where a police officer with a marksmanship award was downed before she could hit the shooter.

His third assumption is that nobody will sneak up behind him and grab his weapon.  Many police officers have been killed with their own weapons.

His fourth assumption is that he is a "law-abiding" citizen with a permit to carry and therefore should be trusted to use his gun responsibly.  "Law-abiding" citizens with permits to carry have deliberately killed others with their guns.  The fired employee who killed the father of another hearing witness was such a "law abiding" citizen.

By contrast, Federal law prohibits guns in Federal facilities.  The penalty for having "a firearm or other dangerous weapon" in a Federal facility is a fine or up to one year in prison or both.  If the Federal facility is a court the prison term can be up to two years.  See "18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities".

Interestingly, the Texas Legislature considers tampons more dangerous than guns.  Its guards "confiscated tampons as possible threats to lawmakers’ safety" but waved those with guns through, "Guns at the Capitol? Beware of the recoil", Dennis Anderson, Star Tribune, 2013-08-23.

Who was standing whose ground?

A big deal is made that a gun-toting "neighborhood watchman" was "standing his ground" in shooting an unarmed black teenager.  Have many considered that an unarmed black teenager was standing his ground against somebody who was stalking him?  Ah, since he didn't have a gun, then he couldn't "stand his ground".  Trayvon Martin didn't have the right to bare fists!

There is more to the U. S. Constitution than the 2nd Amendment

The NRA and others cite the Second Amendment as giving individuals the right to bear arms.  One justification they give is "the people" need arms to protect themselves against "the government".  However, they neglect Article II, Sec 8, of the Constitution:  Congress has the power "to call out the militia to suppress insurrection".

If you use your guns to "protect you" from the government, then you are involved in an insurrection.  If you are in an insurrection, then the Constitution gives Congress the power to suppress your insurrection.  Suppressing an insurrection includes taking the guns from those in the insurrection.

George Washington was involved in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt from 1791-1794.  See "Whiskey Rebellion", Wikipedia.  The Whiskey Rebellion was quite a complicated affair, but popular support seemed to be in favor of the suppression of the rebellion.  Another interesting point that some make: it was also a conflict between large distillers who paid less per gallon than small, individual distillers who paid more per gallon.

The last great Republican President put the down the biggest insurrection of all, the Civil War.

See also "Is the N.R.A. Un-American", Stanley Fish, New York Times, 2013-05-13.

The Axis of Weasels

Syria, Iran, and North Korea have voted against the Arms Trade Treaty.  An axis of weasels that would rather have the right to threaten opponents, domestic and foreign, than have a reduction in the arms trade that enables petty tyrants and terrorists to destabilize countries.

Now, thanks to a few who wrongly fear that the Arms Trade Treaty would take away their right to have their guns, the United States may be prohibited by a vote of the Senate from signing the treaty, thus joining the Axis of Weasels.

Oh, well, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned against the military-industrial complex would be a RINO to those opposing the Arms Trade Treaty.

See "Tell the Truth about the Arms Trade Treaty", Rachel Stohl, New York Times, 2013-04-11